Hi Vivienne,
A page with 2000 links would end up with me closing the browser tab ...
there certainly can be too many links on a page, but I can't recall anything
in WCAG that expressly imposes any limit ...
The 'links list dialog' in JAWS (INSERT + F7) would take considerable time
to compose a list of 2000 links, and one wonders, with that many links,
whether link purpose might become an issue ... meaning links with the same
screen text pointing to different destinations or links with different
screen text pointing to the same destination.
Just a random thought ...
Cheers,
Adam Cooperacooper
-----Original Message-----
From: Vivienne CONWAY [mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:08 PM
To: W3C WAI ig
Subject: Limit on the links in a page
Hi all
I was having a discussion with a colleage about the number of links on pages
and how that poses a burden on users of screen readers in particular. One
page recently had over 2000 links which, if you were using a screen reader
and trying to find your way around via the links, would be incredibly
frustrating. It also caused the automatic tool being used to verify results
to fall over and surrender.
We wondered if there is any mention in WCAG of the need to limit the links.
I couldn't find anything, but some of you might know the answer to this.
Regards
Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs) PhD Candidate & Sessional
Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
v.conway@ecu.edu.auv.conway@webkeyit.com
Mob: 0415 383 673
This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual
or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify
me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original
message.
________________________________________
From: Chaals McCathieNevile [w3b@chaals.com]
Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012 8:10 PM
To: W3C WAI ig; Harry Loots
Subject: Re: does alternate version comply with SC 2.1
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:10:27 +0200, Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
wrote:
> ... by being forced to use the table, [users] are denied the
> advantages offered by the timeline (e.g.: context, comparison at a glance,
etc).
I think that pretty much explains the issue.
Is it clear that to use a keyboard you have to find the alternative version?
How hard is it to make the thing respond to keyboard control?
It seems your developer is proposing something that probably technically
fulfils the minimum possible requirement, but is really second-rate (to
almost avoid saying "half-arsed amateurish") work.
If you're prepared to pay for that, the developer can probably justify it as
acceptable. If this is truly the scenario, please let me know who the
project team is so I don't risk hiring them.
cheers
Chaals
--
Chaals - standards declaimer
This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must
not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received
it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any
record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the
opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no
liability for the accuracy of the information provided.
CRICOS IPC 00279B